Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

22 

GOLAN v. HOLDER 

Opinion of the Court 

providing  incentives  not  primarily  for  creation,”  but  for 
dissemination.  Perlmutter, supra, at 324, n. 5.  Our deci-
sions  correspondingly  recognize  that  “copyright  supplies 
the  economic  incentive  to  create  and  disseminate  ideas.” 
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 
U. S.  539,  558  (1985)  (emphasis  added).    See  also Eldred, 
537 U. S., at 206.27 

Considered against this backdrop, §514 falls comfortably 
within  Congress’  authority  under  the  Copyright  Clause. 
Congress  rationally  could  have  concluded  that  adherence
to  Berne  “promotes  the  diffusion  of  knowledge,”  Brief  for 
Petitioners  4.  A  well-functioning  international  copyright
system would likely encourage the dissemination of exist-
ing  and  future  works.    See  URAA  Joint  Hearing  189 
(statement of Professor Perlmutter).  Full compliance with
Berne,  Congress  had  reason  to  believe,  would  expand  the
foreign  markets  available  to  U. S.  authors  and  invigorate 
protection  against  piracy  of  U. S.  works  abroad,  S. Rep.
No.  103–412,  pp.  224,  225  (1994);  URAA  Joint  Hearing 
291  (statement  of  Berman,  RIAA);  id.,  at  244,  247  (state-
ment  of  Smith,  IIPA),  thereby  benefitting  copyright-
intensive 
inducing  greater 
investment in the creative process.

industries  stateside  and 

The provision of incentives for the creation of new works 
is  surely  an  essential  means  to  advance  the  spread  of 
knowledge and learning.  We hold, however, that it is not 
the  sole  means  Congress  may  use  “[t]o  promote  the  Pro-
gress  of  Science.”  See  Perlmutter,  supra,  at  332  (United 
States  would  “lose  all  flexibility”  were  the  provision  of 
incentives  to  create  the  exclusive  way  to  promote  the 

—————— 

27 That  the  same  economic  incentives  might  also  induce  the  dissemi-
nation  of  futons,  fruit,  or  Bibles,  see  post,  at  20,  is  no  answer  to  this 
evidence  that  legislation  furthering  the  dissemination  of  literary 
property  has  long  been  thought  a  legitimate  way  to  “promote  the 
Progress of Science.”