Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

Has The Cyberlaw Clinic Struck Out?

The cyber-crusaders behind the attempt to roll back the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act are at it again. <br>This time, Stanford professor Lawrence Lessig and his Cyberlaw Clinic asked a Northern California district court to strike the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, which automatically renewed so-called orphan works, copyrights in works created from 1964-1977. Not one to shy away from controversy, the Clinic also asked the district court to reconsider the Supreme Court's Eldred decision in light of the "fundamental" changes Congress made to the U.S. copyright system over the last 30 years. Although the Clinic made some interesting policy arguments, it once again failed to articulate a sound legal basis to back up its claims.

14 minute read March 30, 2005 at 08:00 AM
By
Mark Scarsi
Has The Cyberlaw Clinic Struck Out?

The cyber-crusaders behind the attempt to roll back the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (see, Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003)) are at it again.

This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

Most firms are aiming their newest tools at the work they already do — pouring their most powerful technology into running the same tasks a little faster. But when everyone automates the same tasks at once, no one pulls ahead. That reaches the future a little faster while leaving a firm’s largest opportunity untouched — and that opportunity isn’t doing more of the existing work, but transforming how the high-value work gets done.

June 01, 2026

Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into legal workflows, but much of the conversation treats all use cases as if they carry the same level of risk, even if they do not. The more useful question is not whether AI works, but where it can be safely applied and where it cannot.

June 01, 2026