Talk:Eldred v. Ashcroft

This article is ripe for some serious pruning. Since the Court has ruled, most of this information is now unnecessary. (Some of it was already. For example, the change from Reno to Ashcroft.)

Go for it! --Eloquence 14:48 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

The Reno thing is useful, as are the district and appeals court opinions. Don't take them out. Though you could move more of the substance of the article to the front, and leave that stuff lower down in a sort of "blow by blow" section. In general, don't remove information-- just push it farther down in the article. Dachshund

---

I noticed an inconsistancy in the use of terms, and I don't know which one is correct. In the District Court section, the article refers to the principle of "public trust", but in the Court of Appeals section, the article uses the term "public interest." They seem to be referring to the same thing. adam

I'm not sure what Free Culture was supposed to point to, but it leads to a disambig page now. Book, subculture or website, guys? IMFromKathlene 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eldred v. Ashcroft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041222003647/http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-618.pdf to http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/01-618.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarity and Relevance

I think at the moment the article is not very clear in stating - since the very beginning - what the case is about and who won. Also in the background it is not clear which were the arguments. I think it should be mention that Lawrence Lessig argued the unconstitutionality of the law and it is also important to refer to the birth of Creative Commons. This case is cited as an important step towards the establishment of free licenses; this is important also to state the relevance of this article. I try to adjust the text with references. iopensa (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)