Eldred gets some Aussie attention - and, of course, some more in the United States
Catallaxy Files and John Quiggin both have some comments on the Eldred copyright term extension decision of the US Supreme Court, I notice (ta for the links, guys).

The debates online about this decision have, of course, gone on. it's amazing, actually, the way that the existence of weblogs has allowed us to see a little in the minds of the players at the centre, particularly in this area. You might say, we've had unprecedented access - not just to the losing counsel's own reactions almost as they happen (on Lessig's blog) but also the reactions of those following the progress of the decision (via comments, particularly to Lessig's blog), and of other academics (see especially Jack Balkin's blog, and the Volokh Conspiracy - Eugene Volokh's blog). There's been some heated discussion, particularly over the question of whether it was predictable that the conservatives of the US Supreme Court would distinguish Eldred from other cases (particularly federalism cases) where they've held that Congress's power was limited by the terms of the grant of power.

The other great thing about followign the debate via blogs (if that wasn't enough) is the straightforwardness you get from opinions so expressed (as compared to the more carefully polished pieces we can shortly expect in assorted law reviews). My personal favourite is the comment from David Post on the Volokh Conspiracy, when asking himself, rhetorically, why the unelected members of the court should have intervened over the heads of the elected representatives of teh people in Congress:

"The answer is: the politics of copyright is deeply, profoundly, screwed up. The peoples' elected representatives are hopelessly, systematically, compromised. Copyright politics is all push and no push-back. The big copyright industries buy their way into the back rooms through political contributions and through their general economic muscle, and, once they get there, they say: We Want More. Congress gives them more because the 'public' is not in that room and doesn't really give a damn about the matter, anyway"

yup. Although apparently not quite as badly here in Australia, if the digital agenda stuff is anything to judge by.

[UPDATE - it's been pointed out to me that it looks here like I'm saying Australia's position is worse than US. Quite the opposite. I think the Australian Digital Agenda material is MORE balanced than the US material - particularly because we don't have an offence for circumvention - just for marketing/distributing the stuff. That doesn't mean I like everything about the Digital Agenda - but I think I like the DMCA even less...]

jason notes my "glumness" - true. My views on the case, though, are based not on the fact that I was optimistic that we would get a different result - it was always going to be a tall order - but because the results are just so bad. It just makes no sense (pace Posner) to extend copyright terms practically indefinitely. no economic sense whatsoever (as Jason's quotes from the economists' brief - signed by something like 5 Nobel Prizewinners - indicate).

There's also some glumness based on the fact that, unfortunately, there's some quotes in there about copyright law that are just plain wrong. Like the one in Ginsburg's opinion that suggests that it is "fair use" (a DEFENCE to copyright infringement) that allows us to take facts from copyright works and use them - rather than such use not being infringement at all. Stuff like that is just, well, depressing I'm afraid.

Even more depressing is what i said earlier - expect the push in the Free Trade Round for us to extend likewise. I note Quiggin's agreement on this one. aaaarrrrgggghhhh.