From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 06:52:23 +0000 (+0200) Subject: More indexterm entries based on the original. X-Git-Tag: edition-2015-10-10~81 X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/text-free-culture-lessig.git/commitdiff_plain/4dce245686f12d1fd438d93d18599f5e5c655d4e More indexterm entries based on the original. --- diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml index 7bca77a..f373e98 100644 --- a/freeculture.xml +++ b/freeculture.xml @@ -260,6 +260,7 @@ c INDEX Preface Pogue, David +Code (Lessig) At the end of his review of my first book, Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, David @@ -6523,6 +6524,8 @@ ought to be. Not whether artists should be paid, but whether institutions designed to assure that artists get paid need also control how culture develops. +Code (Lessig) +Lessig, Lawrence free culturefour modalities of constraint on regulationfour modalities of copyright lawas ex post regulation modality @@ -6652,6 +6655,7 @@ other three is more timidly expressed. See Lawrence Lessig, Code: An Other Laws of Cyberspace (New York: Basic Books, 1999): 90–95; Lawrence Lessig, The New Chicago School, Journal of Legal Studies, June 1998. +Code (Lessig) The law, in other words, sometimes operates to increase or decrease the constraint of a particular modality. Thus, the law might be used @@ -6715,6 +6719,7 @@ effective liberty that each of these groups might face. Commons, John R. architecture, constraint effected through market constraints +Code (Lessig) @@ -11449,6 +11454,9 @@ Supreme Court's decision in 1995 to strike down a law that banned the possession of guns near schools. +commerce, interstate +Congress, U.S.constitutional powers of +interstate commerce Since 1937, the Supreme Court had interpreted Congress's granted powers very broadly; so, while the Constitution grants Congress the @@ -11467,6 +11475,7 @@ commerce. A Constitution designed to limit Congress's power was instead interpreted to impose no limit. Rehnquist, William H. +United States v. Lopez/ The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Rehnquist's command, changed that in United States v. Lopez. The government had @@ -11491,8 +11500,11 @@ Congress's power. The decision in Lopez was reaffirmed fi later in United States v. Morrison. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). +United States v. Morrison + + If a principle were at work here, then it should apply to the Progress Clause as much as the Commerce Clause. @@ -11517,6 +11529,9 @@ limit. Thus, the same principle applied to the power to grant copyrights should entail that Congress is not allowed to extend the term of existing copyrights. + +Congress, U.S.Supreme Court restraint on +United States v. Lopez If, that is, the principle announced in Lopez stood for a principle. Many believed the decision in Lopez stood for @@ -11530,6 +11545,7 @@ its politics struck me as extraordinarily boring. I was not going to devote my life to teaching constitutional law if these nine Justices were going to be petty politicians. + Constitution, U.S.copyright purpose established in copyrightconstitutional purpose of copyrightduration of @@ -11581,6 +11597,8 @@ have created the perfect storm for the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again. + + It is valuable copyrights that are responsible for terms being extended. Mickey Mouse and @@ -12262,8 +12280,17 @@ favorites, through copyright, with who has the right to speak. was little I did beyond preparing for this case. Early on, as I said, I set the strategy. +Kennedy, Anthony +O'Connor, Sandra Day Rehnquist, William H. O'Connor, Sandra Day +Thomas, Clarence +United States v. Lopez +United States v. Morrison +Scalia, Antonin +Congress, U.S.Supreme Court restraint on +Supreme Court, U.S.congressional actions restrained by +Supreme Court, U.S.factions of The Supreme Court was divided into two important camps. One camp we called the Conservatives. The other we called the Rest. The @@ -12308,6 +12335,7 @@ also very sensitive to free speech concerns. And as we strongly believed, there was a very important free speech argument against these retrospective extensions. + The only vote we could be confident about was that of Justice @@ -12327,6 +12355,13 @@ argument that Judge Sentelle had relied upon in the Court of Appeals, that Congress's power must be interpreted so that its enumerated powers have limits. +United States v. Lopez +commerce, interstate +interstate commerce +Congress, U.S.in constitutional Progress Clause +Progress Clause +Congress, U.S.copyright terms extended by +Constitution, U.S.Progress Clause of This then was the core of our strategy—a strategy for which I am responsible. We would get the Court to see that just as with the @@ -12349,6 +12384,7 @@ beginning, Congress has been extending the term of existing copyrights. So, the government argued, the Court should not now say that practice is unconstitutional. + There was some truth to the government's claim, but not much. We certainly agreed that Congress had extended existing terms in 1831 @@ -12513,6 +12549,7 @@ number of briefs had been written about it. He wanted to hear it. And here was the place Don Ayer's advice should have mattered. This was a softball; my answer was a swing and a miss. +United States v. Lopez The second came from the Chief, for whom the whole case had been crafted. For the Chief Justice had crafted the Lopez ruling, @@ -12609,6 +12646,7 @@ money in the world against reasoning. And here was the last naïve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning. +United States v. Lopez I first scoured the opinion, looking for how the Court would distinguish the principle in this case from the principle in @@ -12641,6 +12679,7 @@ talk about the two together. There was therefore no principle that followed from the Lopez case: In that context, Congress's power would be limited, but in this context it would not. + Yet by what right did they get to choose which of the framers' values they would respect? By what right did they—the silent @@ -12677,6 +12716,7 @@ way, the point was clear: If the Constitution said a term had to be limited, and the existing term was so long as to be effectively unlimited, then it was unconstitutional. +United States v. Lopez These two justices understood all the arguments we had made. But because neither believed in the Lopez case, neither was willing to push @@ -12704,6 +12744,7 @@ light of the structure of the Constitution. That method had produced Lopez and many other originalist rulings. Where was their originalism now? + Here, they had joined an opinion that never once tried to explain what the framers had meant by crafting the Progress Clause as they