An NYT article on Lawrence Lessing's decision to foucs on political reform instead of copyright reform failed to accurately convey the nature of his suit before the Supreme Court contesting the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (sometimes called the "Mickey Mouse Copyright Act," since it extended Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse for another 20 years). Lessing argued that this copyright law was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. The first amendment prohibits the government from interfering with an individual's right to expression. Copyright clearly is such an interference, since it is used to prevent individuals from reproducing copyrighted work in various forms. The constitution does explicitly allow copyright, but only for limited periods of time and for the expllicit purpose of promoting creative work. Lessing argued that this copyright extension did not fit the purposes described in the constitution because it could have little or no plausible impact on the incentives for creative work, since it was applied retroactively to works produced in the distant past. Therefore, it was simply an unconstitutional restriction on expression.
--Dean Baker
