Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf
Page Number: 52.0

Cite as:  565 U. S. ____ (2012) 

7 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

1892 House Report states: 

“The object to be attained and the reason for the con­
stitutional  grant  of  power  are  imbedded  in  the  grant 
itself.    They  are  ‘to  promote  the  progress  of  science 
and the useful arts.’ . . . [The Clause says] nothing . . . 
about any desire or purpose to secure to the author or 
inventor  his  ‘natural  right  to  his  property.’ ”  H. R. 
Rep. No. 1494, 52d Cong., 1st Sess., 2. 

Similarly, the congressional authors of the landmark 1909 
Copyright Act wrote: 

“The  Constitution  . . .  provides  that  Congress  shall 
have the power to grant [copyrights] . . . [n]ot primari­
ly  for  the  benefit  of  the  author,  . . .  but  because  the 
policy is believed to be for the benefit of the great body 
of  people,  in  that  it  will  stimulate  writing  and  inven-
tion,  to  give  some  bonus  to  authors  and  inventors.” 
H. R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1909). 

And they went on to say: 

“Congress must consider . . . two questions: First, how 
much  will  the  legislation  stimulate  the  producer  and 
so  benefit  the  public;  and,  second,  how  much will  the 
monopoly  granted  be  detrimental  to  the  public?  The
granting  of  such  exclusive  rights,  under  the  proper
terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the pub­
lic  that  outweighs  the  evils  of  the  temporary  monop­
oly.”  Ibid. 

The  upshot  is  that  text,  history,  and  precedent  demon­
strate that the Copyright Clause places great value on the 
power  of  copyright  to  elicit  new  production.    Congress  in
particular cases may determine that copyright’s ability to 
do so outweighs any concomitant high prices, administra­
tive costs, and restrictions on dissemination.  And when it 
does  so,  we  must  respect  its  judgment.  See  Eldred,  537