The distinction between Kahle and Eldred seems clear. However there is another perspective I would like to express.
Doesn't the First Amendment also include the right to hear? Implicit in the right to speak is the concept that speech does not occur in a vacuum. It is the exchange of ideas, in essence, that is being protected.
I personally agree with Perry that it is important, as a predicate, to understand the nature of evil in this age of increasing terroristic activity. Accordingly, I would would like to 'hear' what Dr. Alexander has said. If that is not possible because of legislation arbitrarily and unnecessarily protecting unknown heirs, I believe I am being deprived of this right. I think, in sum, there are widespread implications of this communicative issue.
I am not familiar with the prescribed causes of action and remedies under the various Copyright acts. But are they exclusive? Is this the most effective route of aproach to this problem?
I commend the Policy Center for identifying this issue and making it known to readers.