Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf
Page Number: 64.0

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

19 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

the most part covers works that the author did not expect
to protect in America (and often did not particularly want
to protect), seems somewhat farfetched. 

In  fact,  Congressional  practice  shows  the  contrary.  It 

consists  of  a  virtually  unbroken  string  of  legislation  pre­
venting  the  withdrawal  of  works  from  the  public  domain. 
See,  e.g.,  Berne  Convention  Implementation  Act  of  1988, 
§12,  102  Stat.  2860  (the  Act  “does  not  provide  copyright 
protection for any work that is in the public domain in the
United  States”);  Copyright  Act  of  1976,  Tit.  I,  §101,  90
Stat. 2573 (declining to extend copyright protection to any
work  that  is  in  the  public  domain  prior  to  the  Act  taking
effect);  Copyright  Act  of  1909,  §7,  35  Stat.  1077  (“[N]o
copyright  shall  subsist  in  the  original  text  of  any  work 
which  is  in  the  public  domain,  or  in  any  work  which  was 
published  in  this  country  or  any  foreign  country  prior  to
the  going  into  effect  of  this  Act  and  has  not  been  already
copyrighted  in  the  United  States”);  Act  to  Amend  the 
Several Acts Respecting Copy Rights §16, 4 Stat. 439 (the
Act “shall not extend to any copyright heretofore secured,
the  term  of  which  has  already  expired”);  see  also  H. R.
Rep.  No.  1742,  87th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  3  (1962)  (expressing
concern  that  because  “it  is  not  possible  to  revive  expired
terms of copyright, it seems to the committee to be desira­
ble to suspend further expiration of copyright for a period
long enough to enable the working out of remaining obsta­
cles to the overall revision of the copyright law”). 

2 

The  majority  makes  several  other  arguments.    First,  it 
argues that the Clause does not require the “creation of at
least one new work,” ante, at 20, but may instead “promote 
the Progress of Science” in other ways.  And it specifically
mentions the “dissemination of existing and future works”
as  determinative  here.  Ante,  at  20–23,  and  n. 25.  The 
industry  experts  to  whom  the  majority  refers  argue  that