[dvd-discuss] Golan v Ashcroft: to "Secure for limited times"

[John Schulien <jms(at)uic.edu>]

> The meaning and interpretation of "limited" was what I was
> grappling with (not successfully ) a few months ago with the
> question regarding why copyright terms had to be uniform.

The Golan v Ashcroft reply brief has an argument relating
to the "limited times" issue that I don't recall having been made
explicitly in Eldred:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/golanvashcroft/golan-reply.html

  The government’s view of “limited Times” ... also undermines any
  notion that Congress has “secur[ed]” copyrights “for limited Times.”
  The Framers were quite specific that Congress must “secur[e] for
  limited Times” – in other words,  not just to provide, [FN 12]
  to establish, [FN 13]  or to grant [FN 14]  for limited Times, but
  to secure for limited Times. The verb to “secure” means “to make
  certain.” Oxford English  Dictionary 852 (2d ed. 1989) (“to make
  secure or certain”); see Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. at 660
  (“secure” means “to protect, insure, save, ascertain, etc”).  ...

  ... The only way Congress can “secure for limited Times”
  copyrights is to enact limited terms of copyright that are certain
  and unchanging over time. Although Congress may alter the
  term of copyrights, it may only do so prospectively. For a
  term of an existing copyright that changes over time is, by no
  means, secured or certain. Quite the opposite: if the terms of
  existing copyrights keep changing – as it has 11 eleven times
  in the past 40 years – and is always subject to further change
  by Congress (as the government argues), those terms are
  insecure.