Chapter Captain MKG: In part 8, the main area for updating, I think, is to include a brief acknowledgement of what happened in the Eldred case. The initial filing in the court of first instance is cited in the 9th paragraph in support of the statement the term of protection is fixed by statute and runs when the protection runs. Without interfering with the overall argument, I think that it is possible - probably in a footnote, again - to include an acknowledgement that, while the creator cannot extend the term beyond the statutorily prescribed terms, Congress is apparently able to do so (note this is a flippant & simplistic interpretation of the decision, we will need to make a more carefully based and presented interpretation in the actual Part).

Comments welcome.

There might also be some mention here of the anti-bootlegging statute (17 USC 1101) and SDNY (J.Baer) holding it unconstitutional. It's clear that the Commerce Clause has become a tool for pseudo-copyright regulation, above and beyond the Progress Clause (and that Congress doesn't seem to have a problem with it); the big question is whether more courts will adopt the SDNY reasoning, or whether Congress will be able to continue down this path. -dpk