To claim to be a proponent of free culture is also to be unnecessarily pedantic. However, despite compelling arguments on both sides, as given by Lessig, I find that my sympathies align with members of this movement. The copyright owners argue that they have a right to protect their property – this makes sense whether the owner is a private citizen or a multinational corporation. The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t seem like their ownership is limited, contrary to explicit statements in the constitution. I find it incredible that the courts failed to recognize the danger in allowing Congress to extend the length of copyright protection: “Concerning petitioners’ assertion that Congress could evade the limitation on its authority by stringing together an unlimited number of “limited Times,” the court stated that such legislative misbehavior clearly was not before it.” I fail to see how the numerous extensions granted over the past few years could not be considered “legislative misbehavior”. Perhaps the court is overly worried about stepping on the toes of another branch, and, burdened with this concern, feels that the CTEA does not violate the First amendment. Given Congress seems eager to extend these protections – which in my opinion seems to undercut the courts argument that protection and free speech are compatible – I am quite pleased that Golan v. Gonzales laid the foundation for First Amendment jurisprudence hat can limit copyright. Of course, the questions till remains: what will the powers that be – the RIAA, Congress, and the Supreme Court – do about this ruling? My question: how should the government use analogs from a pre-digital age to inform legislation in the digital age? Should it?