Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf
Page Number: 69

24 

GOLAN v. HOLDER 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

(House  version  of  same);  American  Society  of  Compos- 
ers,  Authors  and  Publishers,  http://www.ascap.com/
licensing/termsdefined.aspx  (society  of  music  copyright 
owners offering blanket licenses that give users the unlim­
ited right to perform any of its members’ songs for a fixed 
fee, thus reducing negotiation and enforcement costs). 

To  say  this  is  not  to  criticize  the  Convention  or  our
joining it.  Rather, it is to argue that the other branches of 
Government  should  have  tried  to  follow  the  Convention 
and  in  particular  its  provisions  offering  compliance  flexi­
bility.  The  fact  that  the  statute  has  significant  First 
Amendment  costs  is  relevant  in  this  respect,  for  that
Amendment  ordinarily  requires  courts  to  evaluate  less 
restrictive, alternative possibilities.  Doing so here, reveals
that neither Congress nor the Executive took advantage of 
less-restrictive methods of compliance that the Convention
itself provides.  And that fact means that the Convention 
cannot  provide  the  statute  with  a  constitutionally  suffi­
cient justification that is otherwise lacking. 

III 
The  fact  that,  by  withdrawing  material  from  the  public
domain, the statute inhibits an important preexisting flow 
of information is sufficient, when combined with the other 
features  of  the  statute  that  I  have  discussed,  to  convince 
me  that  the  Copyright  Clause,  interpreted  in  the  light  of
the  First  Amendment,  does  not  authorize  Congress  to
enact this statute. 

I  respectfully  dissent 

from  the  Court’s  contrary 

conclusion.