Lessig Looks For Explanation Of Kahle Decision
from the thinking-it-all-through dept
On Tuesday, we wrote about how the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals wasn't interested in the Kahle v. Gonzalez case, claiming that it was no different than the Eldred case, and there was no reason to retry the case. Larry Lessig has now written up his own thoughts, expressing surprise at the reasoning, and noting that the only real similarity is that both cases were argued by Lessig himself. But, beyond that, they're quite different. In fact, as Lessig notes, the point of the Kahle case was to make an argument based on the standard set up in Eldred, that you can only challenge changes to copyright law if they are going against the "tradition" of copyright law -- and the Kahle case focuses on how the 1976 changes completely changed the tradition of copyright by switching it from opt-in to opt-out. In Eldred, Lessig was challenging the concept of copyright extension, which the court found didn't go against the tradition of copyright, since Congress had done plenty of extensions in the past. However, in the comments to Lessig's post, Seth Finkelstein makes a very good point that perhaps explains the court's thinking. They're viewing the Eldred decision to mean that Congress can do whatever it wants to modify the procedural aspect of copyrights, and it doesn't trigger a First Amendment constitutional review. It's only if they change the content aspect that it becomes a constitutional issue. That would explain why they would consider both Eldred and Kahle to fall under the same banner -- trying to make a procedural issue into something that they don't consider a First Amendment one. So, as Lessig considers his next steps, perhaps the trick really is to explain how the procedural issue is a First Amendment claim -- because that's where the court doesn't appear to be convinced.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
false dichotomy
But I fear he is making the mistake that many scientists and logicians make when they try to tackle lawyers (I know Lessig is a lawyer, but I think he is a scientist in lawyers clothing :). That mistake is to get bogged down in semantics.
His model is void unless ones admits that any change of magnitude (content) is equal to a change of vector (procedural) in its ultimate effect on the utility of copyright to business and society as a whole.
For a really poor Slashdot style analogy I just pulled out of my ass:
It's like saying that chocolate cake makes you fat, but water is okay, therefore you can drink as much water as you like and nothing bad will happen. But as we know, too much water will kill you. So just because copyrights work with limited terms it doesn't mean copyrights wont spectacularly fail as their terms tend towards infinity. Part of that failure will be a chilling effect on speech and therefore its amenable to First Amendment analysis. Or is that just too glib?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go Lessig, it's your birthday.
It's like copyright "Anna Karenina."
I hope Lessig pulls this one out somehow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]