{"id":9065,"date":"2022-02-02T18:53:07","date_gmt":"2022-02-02T18:53:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/02\/with-stephen-breyers-retirement-the-supreme-court-has-lost-a-justice-who-was-wary-of-overly-burdensome-copyright\/"},"modified":"2022-02-02T18:53:07","modified_gmt":"2022-02-02T18:53:07","slug":"with-stephen-breyers-retirement-the-supreme-court-has-lost-a-justice-who-was-wary-of-overly-burdensome-copyright","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/02\/with-stephen-breyers-retirement-the-supreme-court-has-lost-a-justice-who-was-wary-of-overly-burdensome-copyright\/","title":{"rendered":"With Stephen Breyer’s Retirement, The Supreme Court Has Lost A Justice Who Was Wary Of Overly Burdensome Copyright"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n

from the and-that’s-too-bad<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

\nWhatever the (I’d argue unfortunate) politics behind Stephen Breyer’s decision to retire as a Supreme Court Justice<\/a> at the conclusion of this term, it is notable around here for his views on copyright. Breyer has generally been seen as the one Justice on the court most open<\/a> to the idea that overly aggressive copyright policy was dangerous and potentially unconstitutional. Perhaps ironically, given that they are often lumped together on the overly simplistic “left\/right” spectrum — Justices Breyer and Ginsburg — presented somewhat opposite ends of the copyright spectrum. Ginsburg consistently was a voice in favor of expanding copyright law to extreme degrees, while Breyer seemed much more willing to recognize that the rights of users — including fair use — were extremely important.\n<\/p>\n

\nIf you want to see that clearly, read Ginsburg’s majority opinion in the Eldred case<\/a> (on whether or not copyright term extension is constitutional) as compared to Breyer’s dissent<\/a>. To this day I believe that 21st century copyright law would have been so much more reasonable and so much more for the benefit of the public if Breyer had been able to convince others on the court to his views. As Breyer notes in his dissent, a copyright law that does not benefit the public should not be able to survive constitutional scrutiny:\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\nThus, I would find that the statute lacks the constitutionally necessary rational support (1) if the significant benefits
\nthat it bestows are private, not public; (2) if it threatens
\nseriously to undermine the expressive values that the
\nCopyright Clause embodies; and (3) if it cannot find justification in any significant Clause-related objective.\n<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n(As an aside, the book No Law<\/em><\/a> has a very, very thorough breakdown of how the majority ruling by Justice Ginsburg in that case was just, fundamentally, objectively wrong<\/b>.)\n<\/p>\n

\nThat said, Breyer wasn’t — as he was sometimes painted — a copyleft crusader or anything. As Jonathan Band details, Breyer’s views on copyright appeared to be extremely balanced<\/a> — sometimes ruling for the copyright holder, and sometimes not. Indeed, to this day, I still cannot fathom how he came to write the majority opinion in the Aereo case<\/a>, which used a “looks like a duck” kind of test. In that case, the company carefully followed the letter of the law regarding copyright, and the end result was that, even by playing within the lines, because it felt<\/b> like some other service, the court was fine with declaring it to be a different kind of service (even though technically it was not). We are still suffering from the impact<\/a> of that case today.\n<\/p>\n

\nSo, while I didn’t always think that Breyer got copyright cases correct, he was — consistently — much more thoughtful on copyright issues that any other Justice on today’s court, and that perspective will certainly be missed.\n<\/p>\n

\n
\"Hide<\/p>\n
\n

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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 \u2014 especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.<\/p>\n

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<\/a>. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise \u2014 and every little bit helps. Thank you.<\/p>\n

\u2013The Techdirt Team<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Filed Under: copyright<\/a>, stephen breyer<\/a>, supreme court<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n