Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf
Page Number: 51.0

6 

GOLAN v. HOLDER 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

understanding  that  they  were  “simply  according  formal
recognition  to  what  was  already  inherent  in  the  ‘very 
nature  of  things’ ”);  S.  Stewart,  International  Copyright
and Neighbouring Rights 6–7 (2d ed. 1989) (describing the
European system of droit d’auteur).

This  utilitarian  understanding  of  the  Copyright  Clause
has long been reflected in the Court’s case law.  In Mazer, 
for  example,  the  Court  refers  to  copyright  as  embodying
the  view  that  “encouragement  of  individual  effort  by  per-
sonal  gain  is  the  best  way  to  advance  public  welfare
through the talents of authors and inventors.”  347 U. S., 
at  219  (emphasis  added).    In  Twentieth  Century  Music 
Corp.  v.  Aiken,  422  U. S.  151  (1975),  the  Court  says  that 
underlying copyright is the understanding that “[c]reative 
work  is  to  be  encouraged  and  rewarded,  but  private  moti-
vation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad 
public availability of literature, music, and the other arts.” 
Id., at 156 (emphasis added).  And in Sony Corp. of Amer-
ica v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U. S. 417 (1984), the
Court, speaking of both copyrights and patents, points out 
that  the  “monopoly  privileges  that  Congress  may  author­
ize  are  . . .  [not]  primarily  designed  to  provide  a  special
private  benefit.  Rather,  the  limited  grant  is  a  means  by 
which an important public purpose may be achieved.  It is 
intended to motivate the creative activity of authors . . . by 
the  provision  of  a  special  reward.”  Id.,  at  429  (emphasis 
added); see also, e.g., Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas 
City,  383  U. S.  1,  6  (1966)  (The  “constitutional  command 
. . . ‘[to] promote the Progress [of Science]’ . . . is the stand-
ard  expressed  in  the  Constitution  and  it  may  not  be  ig­
nored”); Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U. S. 123, 127 (1932) 
(“The  sole  interest  of  the  United  States  . . .  lie[s]  in  the
general  benefits  derived  by  the  public  from  the  labors  of 
authors”).

Congress  has  expressed  similar  views  in  congressional
Reports  on  copyright  legislation.    Thus,  for  example,  an