We appreciate the considerable work that has gone into PD5, and believe that several of its provisions and Comments accurately quote or state and explain the law. Nonetheless, PD5 manifests several of the earlier drafts’ shortcomings. We remain particularly concerned that the relationship of this draft to the statute remains highly inconsistent, not to say erratic. We are not sanguine that our oft-repeated calls that the Reporters and ALI devise a consistent and transparent methodology for restating a statute will finally be heeded. (To the extent there is a guiding principle behind this Restatement, and PD5, it often appears to be to construe the Copyright Act and the caselaw to minimize the existence and scope of copyright protection.) But we and other Advisers will keep urging the articulation of a coherent approach to restating the Copyright Act because we are convinced that continuing to carry on without clear methodological principles will undermine the utility of this project and the credibility of the ALI.
Intellectual Property Law | Law
Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts
Jane C. Ginsburg & June M. Besek,
Comments on Preliminary Draft 5 [black letter and comments],
Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/3963