Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf
Page Number: 47

2 

GOLAN v. HOLDER 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

works  that  have  already  been  created  and  already  are  in
the American public domain.  At the same time, the stat­
ute  inhibits  the  dissemination  of  those  works,  foreign 
works  published  abroad  after  1923,  of  which  there  are 
many millions, including films, works of art, innumerable
photographs,  and,  of  course,  books—books  that  (in  the
absence of the statute) would assume their rightful places
in  computer-accessible  databases,  spreading  knowledge
throughout  the  world.   See  infra,  at  10–13.    In  my  view,
the Copyright Clause does not authorize Congress to enact
this statute.  And I consequently dissent. 

I 
The possibility of eliciting new production is, and always
has been, an essential precondition for American copyright 
protection.  The  Constitution’s  words,  “exclusive  Right,”
“limited Times,” “Progress of Science,” viewed through the 
lens  of  history  underscore  the  legal  significance  of  what 
the  Court  in  Eldred  referred  to  as  the  “economic  philoso­
phy behind the Copyright Clause.”  537 U. S., at 212, n. 18 
(brackets  omitted).    That  philosophy  understands  copy­
right’s grants of limited monopoly privileges to authors as
private benefits that are conferred for a public reason—to
elicit new creation. 

Yet,  as  the  Founders  recognized,  monopoly  is  a  two­
edged  sword.  On  the  one  hand,  it  can  encourage  produc­
tion of new works.  In the absence of copyright protection,
anyone  might  freely  copy  the  products  of  an  author’s 
creative  labor,  appropriating  the  benefits  without  incur­
ring the nonrepeatable costs of creation, thereby deterring 
authors  from  exerting  themselves  in  the  first  place.    On 
the other hand, copyright tends to restrict the dissemina­
tion  (and  use)  of  works  once  produced  either  because  the
absence  of  competition  translates  directly  into  higher 
consumer  prices  or  because  the  need  to  secure  copying
permission  sometimes  imposes  administrative  costs  that 
make it difficult for potential users of a copyrighted work
to  find  its  owner  and  strike  a  bargain.    See  W.  Landes  &