• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
BRIEF OF
 AMICUS CURIAE 
ALTNET, INC.IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
 No. 04-480I
 N
 
THE
Supreme Court of the United States
 
 _______________________________ 
O
N
W
RIT
 
OF
C
ERTIORARI
 
TO
 
THE
U
NITED
S
TATES
C
OURT
 
OF
A
PPEALSFOR 
 
THE
N
INTH
C
IRCUIT
193018
A
(
(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859
METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS, INC.,
et al.
,
 Petitioners
,
v.
GROKSTER, LTD.,
et al.
,
 Respondents.
R 
ODERICK 
G. D
ORMAN
Counsel of Record 
L
AWRENCE
M. H
ADLEY
H
ENNIGAN
, B
ENNETT
& D
ORMAN
 
LLP
601 South Figueroa StreetSuite 3300Los Angeles, CA 90017(213) 694-1200A
RMAND
F. A
YAZI
14061 Milbank StreetSherman Oaks, CA 91423(818) 590-4456
 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
 
iCited Authorities Page
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iTABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . .ivSTATEMENT OF INTEREST OF
 AMICUS CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3I.As A Constitutional Matter, The Court ShouldDefer To Congress The Legislative Task Of Whether Petitioners Should Be GivenAdditional Copyright Protections . . . . . . . . .3A.The Constitution Textually Entrusts toCongress the Power to Determine theScope and Duration of CopyrightProtection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3B.This Court Has Repeatedly Recognizedthe Constitutional Prohibition onJudicially-Created Intellectual PropertyRight Protections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
1.Cable TV Technology . . . . . . . . . . .
6
2.Radio Broadcast of Copyrighted Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
3.Internet Service Providers . . . . . . .
8
 
iiCited Authorities Page4.Analogous Patent Law Precedent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10II.The Inherent Limitations Of JudicialResources, Institutional Capacity And TheAdjudicatory Process Compel This CourtTo Defer To Congress The Task Of Creating New Copyright Protection InResponse To New Technologies . . . . . .13A.Historic Overview of Copyright LawDevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14B.Adjudicative Information is Inadequateto Determine Proper Policy Involvingnew Technologies and AssessUnforeseen Consequences of Adjudicatory Decisions . . . . . . . . .17C.The Case-by-Case AdjudicatoryProcess is Informationally Partial andBiased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17D.The Adjudicatory Process isConfined to Consideration of CompetingInterests in a SingleCase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18III.Only Congress Has The Institutional Fact-finding Mechanisms And EvaluativeTools To Shape New Copyright Policy InThe Face Of New Technologies . . . . . .19
 
Contents
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...